The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Merton London Borough Council elections. Consensus was to delete, but the nom requested merge to Merton London Borough Council elections. As an ATD I have redirected without deleting in order to allow for the merge, since the content remains in the history. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:59, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merton Park Ward Residents Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a small local party of little notability outside of the context of Merton Council local elections. It stands candidates only in one ward and has never formed the council administration. The number of sources for the party are small and most of the content on this article is self-published. Therefore, it is better to merge this article into a new section within Merton London Borough Council elections and redirect the page to the section there. This would also enable similar redirect links to be established to the page for Longthornton and Tamworth Residents Association (currently without a page), which held seats in the council in the 1980s and 1990s, and for which there are even fewer sources. Matt 190417 (talk) 17:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A quick Google search reveals a clear lack of coverage on this group in books and news. Most of the information about them seems to come from the group themselves. In my opinion, this article fails the most basic of notability tests. ToastButterToast (talk) 18:15, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge For reasons stated by nominator.Slatersteven (talk) 08:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TMG^talk 19:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they have had electoral success and have been around for decades. It seems absurd to merge or delete a political party which is notable enough for its electoral success and of course its relevence in politics in Merton. Minor parties don't get much coverage usually, however the parties' success shows it is relevant and not dependent on coverage; journalists and academics rarely write about minor parties - this shouldn't be a reason to delete. There is no reason to delete or merge the page; it is a residents association with election success and relevence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenleader(2) (talk • contribs) 18:53, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This argument can be summed up as "Ignore Wikipedia:Notability". Not being covered by journalists and academics is exactly why the article is being nominated for deletion. ToastButterToast (talk) 18:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, the fact they are mentioned in the Wimbledon guardian a number of times in different articles about the election (written about just as much as the other major parties in some articles) shows that they have been given coverage and therefore notability; my point is there is obviously not a huge amount of coverage for the party, but that would obviously be the case for a minor party. I don't see a basis for deletion though; they are mentioned in articles about the local elections a number of times, have had electoral success (have 3 seats) and ultimately have had an impact on politics in Merton. Articles shouldn't be deleted just because academics haven't written about them; I agree that there are some minor parties and that shouldn't be on Wikipedia but this party shouldn't be deleted from wiki; they have enough notability and significance to have their own page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenleader(2) (talk • contribs) 19:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Greenleader(2), would you consider my suggestion of a merge? I agree the party is significant enough to be on Wikipedia because it is significant in the context of Merton council elections- I just don't think it's significant enough to have its own page. Hence why I've suggested merging the page into a new section of Merton local elections. It wouldn't take the MPWRA off Wikipedia; it would just make them reflect their notability. Again, the upshot of such a merge is that we can add a place for Longthornton & Tamworth Residents Association, which - as far as electoral results are concerned - has as much right to have its own page as MPWRA. I envisage all of the MPWRA article (except 'aims') would be copied over to the new section.

Insofar as Wimbledon Guardian articles are concerned, obviously the party has some coverage. But again, usually the party doesn't get more than a sentence in an article (which isn't really significant coverage) and again this is only significance only in the context of Merton council elections. Almost all of the available sources for the party are self-published. Matt 190417 (talk) 19:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It should really be testimony to the party's lack of significance (insofar as its own Wikipedia page is concerned) that the page was created four years ago, and until I started to add sources at the end of last month, there was barely anything in the article, and virtually all of it from the party itself. Matt 190417 (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree. Therefore I reluctantly support a Merge; it would allow for a section on the other residents association too. Perhaps there could be another infobox on the merged page within the section of the residents association outlining the party (a bit like the youth wing of the alliance party with their own section and infobox within the page on the party as a whole). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greenleader(2) (talk • contribs) 13:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this local residents' group that has successfully put forward some election candidates for Merton London Borough Council, unsurprisingly does not meet WP:GNG. It is too local for inclusion in Wikipedia and I don't think it should be merged into the Borough Council article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cwmhiraeth I think this is too ungenerous. We have well-established and fairly well-written summaries of London local elections, and indeed of Merton local elections (I am in the process of rewriting the Merton local elections articles as a pet project, but the summaries existed before my additions, especially for 2010 onwards - anything from 1984 to 2006 is mostly my work). The MPWRA is included in infobox summaries and table results of these articles, e.g. at the page Merton London Borough Council election, 2006. The MPWRA is also linked into articles on the borough and constituency's political history. It would not enrich the encyclopaedia, and probably only leave unanswered questions and confusion, if a local party which is mentioned so often across so many articles on Merton elections did not have its own section anywhere clearly explaining what the party is. While I am aware of the limitations presented by WP:EVENT, it is also to be said that the party's gain in a by-election in 1989 hung the Council for a year (which I have had to go back and explain in Merton local elections page by a note. The party has also consistently held seats in the ward since 1990 (for 28 years), and is therefore not of merely transitory notability. Thus, the MPWRA is notable enough to be included in the context of local elections in Merton, which is why I would like to ask further why you would not be willing to support a merge. MB190417 (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge - Fails WP:GNG. It is very local to have its own page. Also, I do not see extraordinary election results here. If they are hoping for it, then it will fall under WP:TOOSOON.Goharshady (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG. In my experience, and conceding odd exceptions, the community usually accepts as notable any political parties, including micro parties, that are on a national ballot, or that have gained electoral success above the local level (i.e. at a state or provincial level). I am not seeing that here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.